No. Castle Officials Take Heat for Benefits Reduction
Residents opposed to last month’s controversial decision by the North Castle Town Board to revise the benefits package for retired town workers and non-union employees last week leveled stinging criticism at officials for their decision.
The harsh comments that came two weeks after the highly charged June 27 vote focused not only on the pros and cons for requiring retirees and fulltime non-union employees to contribute 15 percent toward their health insurance policy, but for failing to confront a resident who several speakers said demeaned town employees.
“To call retired North Castle employees parasites because they receive benefits that were part of their retirement package was a vicious attack,” said Linda Herbst, whose mother, Mildred Wago, served as the town’s receiver of taxes for more than 40 years. “For members of the town board to allow such attacks is unacceptable.”
The reaction was prompted by a comment from Kerry Lutz, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for town board last year, who said at the June 27 meeting that “I feel taking lifetime benefits, especially for a part-time job, lifetime medical, is being a parasite.”
As part of the revision of the compensation package, three retired town board members who served long enough to receive lifetime health coverage have had those benefits eliminated.
The nearly hour-long debate started after the town board failed to approve the minutes from the June 27 meeting. Before the vote, Supervisor Howard Arden raised concerns that the summary of Lutz’s comments and that of retired water superintendent Anthony Futia were noticeably abbreviated.
Although he did not mention their names during the meeting, Arden confirmed afterwards that Lutz’s and Futia’s comments were reduced to two lines each while others who opposed the action had their comments covered in full. Both supported the board’s 3-2 majority to reduce the benefits package.
Town Clerk Anne Curran, who transcribes the tapes of the meetings and writes the minutes, said she explained to Arden that the minutes reflect substantive comments from public speakers about an issue, in this case the revisions to the town’s Compensation and Benefits Manual. She said most of what Lutz and Futia said was extraneous about the policy and the board’s decision.
“The person whose comments were not long enough was the very person who several people here complained about his remarks,” Curran said to Arden during last week’s meeting. “I left out that very distasteful remark that he made as well as other remarks that he made that had nothing to do with the manual.”
Curran said that was the first instance in her time as either town clerk or deputy clerk that a town board has rejected passage of minutes from a previous meeting. She encouraged Arden to write an addendum to reflect the full flavor of the remarks.
Arden indicated that he planned to submit an addendum to Curran’s office in the near future. Board members said they had no problem if the supervisor chose to do that.
Meanwhile, Councilman Michael Schiliro apologized to the retirees and their families for not defending them and their contributions that they have made to the town.
“I’m sorry. I’m sorry to the families that had to hear that and I’m sorry that I didn’t say anything,” Schiliro said.
But Arden, who called Lutz’s use of the word parasite “rude” and “arrogant,” responded that the reason why neither Schiliro nor any other board member didn’t jump to their defense was because he was clearly referring to the three former town board members whose coverage was being stripped, not former full-time employees.
The episode, spiced by several passionate comments from the public, once again highlighted the deep political division on the board.
Speakers pointedly told the board that by reducing benefits, particularly to the retirees, who were given virtually no notice so they could plan for the estimated $62 monthly expense. The change took effect on July 1, four days after the vote.
Resident Sam Morell questioned how officials could reduce benefits for people who may have decided to spend their career working for a municipal government based on the benefits and retirement package they were promised.
“They went into this job and devoted so many loyal years to this town based on that consideration,” Morell said.
Charlene Wago Decker, another of Mildred Wago’s daughters, also said the town blindsided “Did you give our retirees time to prepare?” she said. “Did you give our retirees an opportunity to save money for this while they were working? No they didn’t because they didn’t think they had to. You changed the rules while the game’s in progress. That’s not fair.”
Others questioned the projected $17 million savings to the town that the board majority has cited and how the current administration is not valuing its workers.
“I’ve been a small business manager,” said Banksville resident Sharon Tomback, who served as secretary to former supervisors Reese Berman and William Weaver. “Good employees are like gold. We should guard them well.”
Arden released a two-page report on Friday detailing how his office concluded that there would be a $17 million savings to the town. It was based on savings calculated from an actuarial table for life expectancy for the current 13 fulltime non-union employees and today’s 25 retirees. It assumed that health insurance escalation would average 6.5 percent a year and that current employees work until their 62 or have 20 years experience. The previous retirement age was 55.
Martin has more than 30 years experience covering local news in Westchester and Putnam counties, including a frequent focus on zoning and planning issues. He has been editor-in-chief of The Examiner since its inception in 2007. Read more from Martin’s editor-author bio here. Read Martin’s archived work here: https://www.theexaminernews.com/author/martin-wilbur2007/
